Russia tests world's biggest bomb

[Carrera]

Seems like a new Cold war is definitely on the cards and I've been following the situation for some time, especially as I used to live in Russia. Putin's latest vacuum bomb is apparently 4 times more powerful than anything in the U.S. to date, except nuclear (which the vacuum bomb isn't). Russia has likewise threatened to retaliate by pointing missiles at NATO targets if countries such as Poland are used for strategic defence but there's more to it than that. The current Government in Russia feels the U.S. is trying to bring the Putin regime down and install another Yeltsin type leader.
Russia's point is there is currently no nuclear threat from Iran so any missile defence placed in Poland or Prague must be directed against Moscow with Iran as a pretext.
Relations with Europe are not so good either, especially Germany. Russia seems to be moving far closer to China militarily. Here's the lowdown on the latest vacuum bomb:

"The Tu-160 supersonic bomber that dropped the bomb, widely known under its NATO nickname of "Blackjack", is the heaviest combat aircraft ever built.

Putin, who has overseen the roll-out of new tactical and anti-aircraft missiles and combat aircraft, has ordered "Blackjacks" and the Tu-95 "Bear" bombers to patrol around the world.

The report said the new bomb was much stronger than the U.S.-built Massive Ordnance Air Blast bomb -- MOAB, also known under its name "Mother of All Bombs". "So, Russian designers called the new weapon 'Father of All Bombs'," it said.

Showing the orange-painted U.S. prototype, the report said the Russian bomb was four times more powerful -- 44 metric tons of TNT equivalent -- and the temperature at the epicenter of its blast was two times higher."

 

[Carrera]

"The test comes after weeks of increasingly belligerent rhetoric from the Kremlin.

Mr Putin has ordered his long-range nuclear bombers to mount patrols in international airspace for the first time since the Cold War.

Last week, Russian Tupolev bombers approached British airspace for the fourth time in two months and sorties have also been flown close to US military installations.

Since Mr Putin, an ex-KGB officer, came to power, Russia's annual defence spending has been quadrupled.

In addition, the Kremlin has announced a £100 billion military modernisation programme.

The new bomb is further proof that Russia's military has regained its technological edge. New ground and sea launched nuclear missiles have also been developed."

 

[Carrera]

The consensus is the rift between Putin's Russia and the U.S. and E.U. is here to stay. Russia will sell oil to Europe and invest in European industry e.t.c. but the idea of Russia as a European state or NATO ally is off the agenda.
Democracy in Russia isn't as good as it could be although this is mainly in the field of the press and media coming under too much State control. However, you have to remember the majority of Russians like what Putin has done since Yeltsin retired. He's probably got about 80 per cent support throughout the country since the economy is now far far stronger than the Yeltsin era.

 

[coneofsilence]

Has Russia pulled out of the cold war treaty???

 

[sogood]

With Bush's aggressive foreign policy being used around the globe, I am not surprised there's such a response. If the US is entitled to dot their soldiers all over the world, then why can't another country in the name of fair play?

 

[Carrera]

To be honest, I don't blame Russia at all in this instance. Russia has been told a defence system is needed close to its borders to protect the U.S. from Iran but Russia knows only too well Iran doesn't have such a missile capacity. Iran has no nuclear weapons thus far. So, Russians are asking who is the target here, Iran or Russia?
Add to that, Russian accusations that there have been plots to get rid of Putin and install another Yeltsin - a man who was a complete disaster for the economy and left the country bankrupt.
It's also pretty incredible Russia should be lectured on democracy when you see the U.S. not respecting human rights even within its own borders in too many cases. I mean, I was watching a documentary on that sheriff in Arizona who's been accused by Amnesty of serious human rights abuses against prisoners who he locks up in tents. So, it's a pity Putin doesn't bring that one up to Condi Rice next time she meets with Russian liberals in Moscow.
Yes, America has a far more liberal press and media than Russia but I think Russians have other freedoms Americans don't have at the moment.
I beieve Russia is saying if you put missile defence as close as Poland there's going to be a major response. Ultimately that could mean Poland coming under strategic targeting as well as bombers patrolling the sky. It's unfortunate but if Russia feels threatened it will naturally respond. There could even be an alliance with China which would pose a serious counterweight to NATO.

With Bush's aggressive foreign policy being used around the globe, I am not surprised there's such a response. If the US is entitled to dot their soldiers all over the world, then why can't another country in the name of fair play?

 

[Bro Deal]

With Bush's aggressive foreign policy being used around the globe, I am not surprised there's such a response. If the US is entitled to dot their soldiers all over the world, then why can't another country in the name of fair play?

One thing is clear about Bush, and that is that he is completely and utterly incompetent. Surprisingly for a politician, even an incompetent one, he has a tin ear. He is unable to understand how his actions are perceived by others; I don't think he has ever cared. He really thinks of himself as King George. It has had disasterous results. Perhaps one of the worst of these results will be making Russia an enemy again.

He has squandered the opportunity that came from the end of the cold war. In this he has had the help of the UK, France, and Germany. Those countries could have embraced Russia, poured in tons of capital investment, and made it a friend and an ally. Instead they have a pursued a policy that seems almost like it must have been preplanned to alienate Russia.

They have pushed NATO right up to Russia's doorstep. From the Russian perspective this was not only unnecessary, it is provocative. From a non-Russian perspective it is inexplicable. What is the purpose of continuing to expand NATO when its old enemy has crumbled? Bush has put bases into the new NATO countries. He has put bases in old Soviet territories. It looks like a policy of surrounding Russia and pressing inward..

Then there are the U.S. two invasions for regime change, which can be combined with the obvious distaste for the current Russian leadership. Putting in anti-missile systems to protect against a threat from Iran that does not exist has become the final straw. Just recently McCain was calling for the expulsion of Russia from the G8. For the last few months the CIA and the defense department has been ramping up the tempo on the planning for an attack on Iran, another country. The Russians would have to be stupid not to be scared of NATO imperialism.

 

[Crankyfeet]

One thing is clear about Bush, and that is that he is completely and utterly incompetent. Surprisingly for a politician, even an incompetent one, he has a tin ear. He is unable to understand how his actions are perceived by others; I don't think he has ever cared. He really thinks of himself as King George. It has had disasterous results. Perhaps one of the worst of these results will be making Russia an enemy again.

He has squandered the opportunity that came from the end of the cold war. In this he has had the help of the UK, France, and Germany. Those countries could have embraced Russia, poured in tons of capital investment, and made it a friend and an ally. Instead they have a pursued a policy that seems almost like it must have been preplanned to alienate Russia.

They have pushed NATO right up to Russia's doorstep. From the Russian perspective this was not only unnecessary, it is provocative. From a non-Russian perspective it is inexplicable. What is the purpose of continuing to expand NATO when its old enemy has crumbled? Bush has put bases into the new NATO countries. He has put bases in old Soviet territories. It looks like a policy of surrounding Russia and pressing inward..

Then there are the U.S. two invasions for regime change, which can be combined with the obvious distaste for the current Russian leadership. Putting in anti-missile systems to protect against a threat from Iran that does not exist has become the final straw. Just recently McCain was calling for the expulsion of Russia from the G8. For the last few months the CIA and the defense department has been ramping up the tempo on the planning for an attack on Iran, another country. The Russians would have to be stupid not to be scared of NATO imperialism.

There's a lot of military corporations and government intelligence operatives (and politicians looking for a more targetable enemy than invisible terrorists) who long for the "good ole days" of the cold war to return.

If Russia can't be prodded, then there is always China. America seems to always need a public-enemy-number-one to keep it invigorated as a nation. Before 9/11, China was being discussed ad infinitum as being the new evil nemesis (ironically - given our latest exploits with regard international prisoners - on human rights grounds primarily). That discussion went moot when Osama popped up his hand and volunteered for the job of "Outlaw". This then was cleverly morphed into a posse round-up to bring the rogue Saddam in from the wilderness. Now we have Iran, but Russia as a returned enemy engenders a lot more government spending perhaps.

 

[sogood]

...America seems to always need a public-enemy-number-one to keep it invigorated as a nation...

That summarized it. If there isn't one, we'll create one. Pretty pathetic really.

 

[Carrera]

I have very moderate friends in Russia and know something about what makes younger Russians tick. For starters, I know they were very unhappy over the NATO bombing of Serbia and the apparent bungling of a drunken Boris Yeltsin at the time. This prepared the path for Putin - a stronger leader. Of course, under Putin today, Russians are still a free people. The only problem you may get is if you're anti Putin and working for the press or a very rich millionaire new Russian who wants to see the Oligarchs back in power. Then, I confess there is this very unpleasant right-wing fascist movement amongst teens that's a bit scary.
Still, the average, educated Russian just wants to live well and make money. I know many such people. They could care less about the Kremlin and prefer drinking beer in an Irish bar somewhere in Moscow and shopping e.t.c. They enjoy freedoms Britons and Americans don't have in many ways as they're free to live as they please - so long as they don't plan on investing millions in rival political parties at this point in time.
80 per cent of Russians are happy with Putin. It's mainly the economy that makes Putin popular as Moscow is now pretty loaded.
Of course, there is a fear now that Russia could feel so alienated by Europe it will seek alliances in Iran, Turkey and China. It would be a big mistake to exclude Russia or push Russia into a corner since Russia has a history of a superpower status, even back to the era of Peter the Great. Besides, Russia doesn't want another cold war at all.

One thing is clear about Bush, and that is that he is completely and utterly incompetent. Surprisingly for a politician, even an incompetent one, he has a tin ear. He is unable to understand how his actions are perceived by others; I don't think he has ever cared. He really thinks of himself as King George. It has had disasterous results. Perhaps one of the worst of these results will be making Russia an enemy again.

He has squandered the opportunity that came from the end of the cold war. In this he has had the help of the UK, France, and Germany. Those countries could have embraced Russia, poured in tons of capital investment, and made it a friend and an ally. Instead they have a pursued a policy that seems almost like it must have been preplanned to alienate Russia.

They have pushed NATO right up to Russia's doorstep. From the Russian perspective this was not only unnecessary, it is provocative. From a non-Russian perspective it is inexplicable. What is the purpose of continuing to expand NATO when its old enemy has crumbled? Bush has put bases into the new NATO countries. He has put bases in old Soviet territories. It looks like a policy of surrounding Russia and pressing inward..

Then there are the U.S. two invasions for regime change, which can be combined with the obvious distaste for the current Russian leadership. Putting in anti-missile systems to protect against a threat from Iran that does not exist has become the final straw. Just recently McCain was calling for the expulsion of Russia from the G8. For the last few months the CIA and the defense department has been ramping up the tempo on the planning for an attack on Iran, another country. The Russians would have to be stupid not to be scared of NATO imperialism.

 

[Carrera]

At the moment it's Iran. I don't think Islamic clerics would be at all popular in Iran were it not for the invasion of Iraq. In fact, younger Iranians want democracy and more liberalism but fear of conflict has put the religious clerics into office.

That summarized it. If there isn't one, we'll create one. Pretty pathetic really.

 

[11ring]

At the moment it's Iran. I don't think Islamic clerics would be at all popular in Iran were it not for the invasion of Iraq. In fact, younger Iranians want democracy and more liberalism but fear of conflict has put the religious clerics into office.

Well, pretty much everyone wants democracy, it's just that the US model of economic rationalism, which is touted as the "democratic' model only benefits a tiny minority, the political changes in Iran are not driven so much by religion per se, but by a desire to spread the wealth. Remember the 1979 revolution was a popular movement, with many socialist and union elements, and even though it was hijacked by ruling class islamic identities they still had to keep some of the rhetoric and practice of redistribution.

This is what Iranians voted for- a return to populist economic nationalism in the hope of alleviating some of their poverty and hardship. It is unfortunate that the Islamic movement has been the primary mouthpiece for anti-imperialism and social justice; it shows how weak the genuine left is in the middle east.

 

[Bro Deal]

Well, pretty much everyone wants democracy, it's just that the US model of economic rationalism, which is touted as the "democratic' model only benefits a tiny minority, the political changes in Iran are not driven so much by religion per se, but by a desire to spread the wealth. Remember the 1979 revolution was a popular movement, with many socialist and union elements, and even though it was hijacked by ruling class islamic identities they still had to keep some of the rhetoric and practice of redistribution.

This is what Iranians voted for- a return to populist economic nationalism in the hope of alleviating some of their poverty and hardship. It is unfortunate that the Islamic movement has been the primary mouthpiece for anti-imperialism and social justice; it shows how weak the genuine left is in the middle east.

Who is to say that a muslim country would be better off with a Western-style democracy? The West has had half a millenium to transition from the rule of priests and kings to democracy. A religious republic may be just what some of these countries need for an extended period before they transition to something else.

I'd place Iran's government as a lot more progressive than the monarchies in the Middle East that the U.S. props up.

 

[sogood]

At the moment it's Iran. I don't think Islamic clerics would be at all popular in Iran were it not for the invasion of Iraq.

Blame Dubya Bush and his cronies again.

 

[sogood]

Who is to say that a muslim country would be better off with a Western-style democracy? The West has had half a millenium to transition from the rule of priests and kings to democracy. A religious republic may be just what some of these countries need for an extended period before they transition to something else.

Guess what? The American society and politics are going strongly toward Christian fundamentalism. Is that what US model of democracy brings?

 

[Crankyfeet]

Well, pretty much everyone wants democracy, it's just that the US model of economic rationalism, which is touted as the "democratic' model only benefits a tiny minority

"Democracy" is just a red-herring concept similar to Iraq's WMD's. If America really believed in democracy, the world (or United Nations) would become one, and China would get five times as many votes as the USA.

Democracy is only espoused when it gives you - or rationalizes - what you want.

 

[11ring]

Who is to say that a muslim country would be better off with a Western-style democracy? The West has had half a millenium to transition from the rule of priests and kings to democracy. A religious republic may be just what some of these countries need for an extended period before they transition to something else.

I'd place Iran's government as a lot more progressive than the monarchies in the Middle East that the U.S. props up.

Sure, on many indicators Iran is much more progressive, more women go to university than men, there are elections etc, ,i.e. Iran IS a democracy by commonly used standards.

But i disagree that there are different standards for different regions or races or cultures. The people of the Middle East have been fighting for democracy, in the sense of the people having a say in their countries policies through demonstrations, revolutions, and elections,and it has been the US that has consistently crushed these aspirations, as real democratic states would oppose Isreal, use the oil to benefit the citizens, oppose neoliberalism, and oppose US and other states imperial projects in the region. Even scarier, they might develop industry and not be dependent on oil exports to earn foreign currency.

Democracy as a concept is universally progressive, it is just that when it is likened to a specific form of economic rationalism, which the US promotes but doesn't practice, and in any case is about restricting peoples control over their economy and lives, is it any wonder that people are hesitant to sing it's praises. That does not mean that democracy is not "suitable" for the "poor backward uneducated Arabs who will only abuse it" (as in make decisions counter to imperialisms wishes)- it is precisely this argument which is used to gibe "reluctant and pragmatic support" (read CIA and air force backing) to US imposed dictators.

In Europe it did take centuries to win limited parliamentary democracy, but it was not some gradual process in which people learnt the democratic principle and gradually enacted it, it was because the early attempts to fight feudalism were drowned in blood. All the better if it (the democratic revolution (s))happened sooner and not in a compromised way, such as in Britian where the bloody monarchy was compromised with rather than crushed.

In Iran most of the same people who advocate a more progressive social policy with regards to women, minorities etc, are not pro-US and do not support economic rationalism, they are for public investment in universities, againt US agression, oppose Israel, and are for increased acess to health care and public transport etc.

It is absolute rubbish to associate "economic liberalism" in the sence of neo liberal economic policies with "political liberalism" in the sense of democratic rights etc.

In fact, there is a long standing debate regarding the compatibility of democracy and economic liberalism, especially with regards to the US state. The right wing elements in this debate argues that the US state is founded on property rights enshrined by principles of economic liberalism, which democracy undermines. The then go onto argue that democracy should be subordinate and sacrificed in the name of property rights.

 

[Bro Deal]

Sure, on many indicators Iran is much more progressive, more women go to university than men, there are elections etc, ,i.e. Iran IS a democracy by commonly used standards.

But i disagree that there are different standards for different regions or races or cultures. The people of the Middle East have been fighting for democracy, in the sense of the people having a say in their countries policies through demonstrations, revolutions, and elections,and it has been the US that has consistently crushed these aspirations, as real democratic states would oppose Isreal, use the oil to benefit the citizens, oppose neoliberalism, and oppose US and other states imperial projects in the region. Even scarier, they might develop industry and not be dependent on oil exports to earn foreign currency.

Democracy as a concept is universally progressive, it is just that when it is likened to a specific form of economic rationalism, which the US promotes but doesn't practice, and in any case is about restricting peoples control over their economy and lives, is it any wonder that people are hesitant to sing it's praises. That does not mean that democracy is not "suitable" for the "poor backward uneducated Arabs who will only abuse it" (as in make decisions counter to imperialisms wishes)- it is precisely this argument which is used to gibe "reluctant and pragmatic support" (read CIA and air force backing) to US imposed dictators.

In Europe it did take centuries to win limited parliamentary democracy, but it was not some gradual process in which people learnt the democratic principle and gradually enacted it, it was because the early attempts to fight feudalism were drowned in blood. All the better if it (the democratic revolution (s))happened sooner and not in a compromised way, such as in Britian where the bloody monarchy was compromised with rather than crushed.

In Iran most of the same people who advocate a more progressive social policy with regards to women, minorities etc, are not pro-US and do not support economic rationalism, they are for public investment in universities, againt US agression, oppose Israel, and are for increased acess to health care and public transport etc.

It is absolute rubbish to associate "economic liberalism" in the sence of neo liberal economic policies with "political liberalism" in the sense of democratic rights etc.

In fact, there is a long standing debate regarding the compatibility of democracy and economic liberalism, especially with regards to the US state. The right wing elements in this debate argues that the US state is founded on property rights enshrined by principles of economic liberalism, which democracy undermines. The then go onto argue that democracy should be subordinate and sacrificed in the name of property rights.

I will disagree in that I would not characterize the switch to democracy in the West as sudden. While the actual switch to democracy was often short and bloody, it was preceded by hundreds of years of cultural and intellectual changes. The American and French Revolutions swept away governments that had become anachronisms at that point in their cultural development.

Democracy works best in fairly homogeneous societies that are well educated and have a large middle class. Many (most) countries in the world do not meet those criteria. The U.S. is currently heading in a direction that makes democracy less workable.

I am very skeptical (to say the least) that the world is filled with peoples yearning to be free and all you need to do is let them vote and you will end up with strong democratic nations. That is a fallacy that led the neocons to invade Iraq. I tend to believe that there is no perfect government or economic system or set of laws that is suitable for every people. Instead you need to find a system that fits a people and their situation.

 

[sogood]

Democracy works best in fairly homogeneous societies that are well educated and have a large middle class. Many (most) countries in the world do not meet those criteria. The U.S. is currently heading in a direction that makes democracy less workable.

I am very skeptical (to say the least) that the world is filled with peoples yearning to be free and all you need to do is let them vote and you will end up with strong democratic nations. That is a fallacy that led the neocons to invade Iraq. I tend to believe that there is no perfect government or economic system or set of laws that is suitable for every people. Instead you need to find a system that fits a people and their situation.

Agree with this view.

Democracy is something that comes naturally when a society evolves, when all the necessary socioeconomic conditions are in place. It's definitely not something that can be forced upon externally. Hence it makes me wonder about all these economic sanctions applied to certain countries, one that kills off the developing middle class, leading to further delays in the democratic change. This bipolar behaviour of some Western countries, where one day it's aid and then sanction the next, is utterly puzzling. There's a thing called leave them alone...

 

[Bro Deal]

Democracy is something that comes naturally when a society evolves, when all the necessary socioeconomic conditions are in place. It's definitely not something that can be forced upon externally. Hence it makes me wonder about all these economic sanctions applied to certain countries, one that kills off the developing middle class, leading to further delays in the democratic change. This bipolar behaviour of some Western countries, where one day it's aid and then sanction the next, is utterly puzzling. There's a thing called leave them alone...

Good point.

To take this back to Russia, after the breakup of the USSR there was talk of massive economic aid. The U.S. turned out to be stingy. Clinton let the situation fester, and Bush has been actively picking at the wound. Developing a thriving middle class in Russia might have paid off long term. Instead we have poured tons of money building the economy of China, which looks more and more like a fascist state.